The Black Anthropocene: and the end(s) of the constitutionalizing project

IF 3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Journal of Human Rights and the Environment Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI:10.4337/jhre.2024.01.03
David Chandler
{"title":"The Black Anthropocene: and the end(s) of the constitutionalizing project","authors":"David Chandler","doi":"10.4337/jhre.2024.01.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is written in response to the assumptions and objectives of a recent project coming out of Tilburg Law School, called ‘Constitutionalizing in the Anthropocene’, but can be read just as easily as a stand-alone piece. The analysis presented here is based on an understanding of the concept ‘Anthropocene’ as rejecting modernist ontological assumptions about a split between human and nature. The concept says that this split is fictitious and can no longer hold in the present context of ecological crisis. The project to constitutionalize the conditions of living in the Anthropocene recognizes the importance of this shift but, this article argues, fails to fully acknowledge the implications for law. In contrast, this article explores the alternative concept of the ‘Black Anthropocene’ as a (para-)ontological understanding and an ethico-political response that better captures the concept of Anthropocene, including the legal implications. Grounded in the concept of Black Anthropocene, this article demarcates two distinct approaches to relationality and to the legal subject. It then utilizes this framing to rethink constitutionalization as disavowing the imbrication of law within a modernist ontology of separation and, as a result, the possibilities for constitutionalizing the Anthropocene at all. The article argues that focusing on anti-Blackness as central to the modernist ontology of human and world opens other possibilities for thought, leading us to question, rather than seek to preserve, the authority and legitimacy of projects of constitutionalization per se.","PeriodicalId":43831,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights and the Environment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights and the Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2024.01.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article is written in response to the assumptions and objectives of a recent project coming out of Tilburg Law School, called ‘Constitutionalizing in the Anthropocene’, but can be read just as easily as a stand-alone piece. The analysis presented here is based on an understanding of the concept ‘Anthropocene’ as rejecting modernist ontological assumptions about a split between human and nature. The concept says that this split is fictitious and can no longer hold in the present context of ecological crisis. The project to constitutionalize the conditions of living in the Anthropocene recognizes the importance of this shift but, this article argues, fails to fully acknowledge the implications for law. In contrast, this article explores the alternative concept of the ‘Black Anthropocene’ as a (para-)ontological understanding and an ethico-political response that better captures the concept of Anthropocene, including the legal implications. Grounded in the concept of Black Anthropocene, this article demarcates two distinct approaches to relationality and to the legal subject. It then utilizes this framing to rethink constitutionalization as disavowing the imbrication of law within a modernist ontology of separation and, as a result, the possibilities for constitutionalizing the Anthropocene at all. The article argues that focusing on anti-Blackness as central to the modernist ontology of human and world opens other possibilities for thought, leading us to question, rather than seek to preserve, the authority and legitimacy of projects of constitutionalization per se.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
黑色人类世:宪政化项目的终结
本文是针对蒂尔堡法学院最近开展的一个名为 "人类世的宪法化 "项目的假设和目标而写,但也可以作为一篇独立的文章来阅读。本文的分析基于对 "人类世 "概念的理解,即摒弃现代主义本体论关于人与自然分裂的假设。这一概念认为,这种分裂是虚构的,在当前的生态危机背景下不再成立。本文认为,将人类世的生活条件宪法化的项目承认这一转变的重要性,但未能充分认识到其对法律的影响。与此相反,本文探讨了 "黑色人类世 "这一替代概念,将其作为一种(准)本体论理解和伦理政治回应,更好地捕捉人类世概念,包括其法律意义。本文以 "黑色人类世 "概念为基础,划分了两种不同的关系性方法和法律主体方法。然后,文章利用这一框架来重新思考宪政化问题,即摒弃将法律纳入现代主义分离本体论的做法,从而摒弃将人类世宪政化的可能性。文章认为,将反黑人作为现代主义人类本体论和世界本体论的核心,为我们开辟了其他思考的可能性,使我们质疑而非寻求维护宪政化项目本身的权威性和合法性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: The relationship between human rights and the environment is fascinating, uneasy and increasingly urgent. This international journal provides a strategic academic forum for an extended interdisciplinary and multi-layered conversation that explores emergent possibilities, existing tensions, and multiple implications of entanglements between human and non-human forms of liveliness. We invite critical engagements on these themes, especially as refracted through human rights and environmental law, politics, policy-making and community level activisms.
期刊最新文献
Book review: Matthew C Canfield, Translating Food Sovereignty: Cultivating Justice in an Age of Transnational Governance (Stanford University Press, Stanford 2022) 264 pp. Book review: Rupert Read, Why Climate Breakdown Matters (Bloomsbury, London 2022) 232 pp. Constitutionalizing in the Anthropocene: an introduction Book review: Yoram Bauman and Grady Klein, The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change, Revised Edition (Island Press, Washington DC 2022) 224 pp. Entanglements: the ambivalent role of law in the Anthropocene
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1